why does this only work for heterosexuals?

[gixxerboy1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43738881...ids/?GT1=43001

AIDS drugs designed to treat HIV can also be used to reduce dramatically the risk of infection among heterosexual couples, two studies conducted in Africa showed for the first time on Wednesday.

The findings add to growing evidence that the type of medicines prescribed since the mid-1990s to treat people who are already sick may also hold the key to slowing or even halting the spread of the sexually transmitted disease.

The research involving couples in Kenya, Uganda and Botswana found that daily AIDS drugs reduced infection rates by an average of at least 62 percent when compared with placebo.

"Effective new HIV prevention tools are urgently needed and these studies could have enormous impact in preventing heterosexual transmission," Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), said in a statement.

She said the United Nations health agency would now work with countries to use the new findings to implement better protection strategies.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plans to review the data and issue its own guidelines -- taking into account issues such as whether behavior may change when people know they are taking a drug that reduces infection risk, said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, CDC director HIV/AIDS prevention.

In its first official guidance on the topic, the CDC said in January that only high-risk gay and bisexual men should use a daily AIDS pill to protect themselves from the virus.
Advertise | AdChoices

New option in prevention tool kit
The larger of the two new studies examined 4,758 "discordant" couples in Kenya and Uganda in which one partner was HIV-positive and one was negative. Those negative partners taking Gilead Sciences Inc's tenofovir, or Viread, had on average 62 percent fewer infections.

For couples on Truvada -- another Gilead drug combining tenofovir and emtricitabine -- the infection risk was cut by an estimated 73 percent in the clinical trial, which was led by researchers at the University of Washington.

Dr. Jared Baeten, principal investigator of the study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said real-life application of the results has not been determined. But Baetennoted that "discordant" couples who want to have children may now have an alternative to condoms.

The second study, involving just over 1,200 sexually active men and women in Botswana, found those on daily Truvada reduced their risk of HIV infection by 62.6 percent.

Lead investigator, Dr. Michael Thigpen, said Truvada proved to be safe and effective. He said the drug -- along with things like male circumcision, topical microbicide gels and condoms -- could be another tool for preventing the spread of HIV.

The idea of such "pre-exposure prophylaxis," known as PrEP, has gained traction in the past year, following results of other research showing a fall in infection rates among gay men taking AIDS drugs.

However, PrEP took a knock earlier this year when another study failed to demonstrate a protective effect in high-risk women. The latest strong evidence is likely to restore confidence in the approach.

'Tipping point' in HIV fight
Around 33 million people worldwide have the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS, most living in Africa and Asia. Only about half know their HIV status, and the WHO hopes that news of an effective approach to prevention will encourage more people to get tested.

Michel Sidibe, head of the UN's program on HIV/AIDS, said the new studies "could help us to reach the tipping point in the HIV epidemic."

The larger study, conducted in Kenya and Uganda, had been scheduled to run until late 2012 but its placebo arm was stopped early because the evidence of efficacy was so strong.

Results of the Botswana study, led by the CDC, had been due to be unveiled next week at an international AIDS congress in Rome but were released ahead of time to coincide with the University of Washington research.

AIDS drugs are available as generics in many poor countries at prices as low as 25 U.S. cents a tablet, according to the WHO. Prices could fall further and supplies increase following an agreement by Gilead, the leading maker of HIV drugs, to share intellectual property rights on its medicines in a new patent pool. The California-based group Tuesday became the first drugmaker to sign up to the Medicines Patent Pool.

[spywizard]

33 million people are HIV positive ??? world wide ?? expected life expectancy is >5 yrs

How are we going to fund Health Care for those of us that are healthy??

Ya know in the animal kingdom when there is lots of food around the animals have babies, heck even twins.. and when there is less food and or disease there is fewer mouths to feed.

It's just the planets way of eliminating the thing that is cause it to heat up..

sarcasm doesn't always come across in the printed word.


Ok, why does it work for heterosexuals??? If im not mistaken and i could be, meds are most effective in preventing the spread of HIV, not keeping much of the infected populace alive, after all they cannot contribute to society, and they can't pay for treatment, so the pharmaceutical companies wont' give it away.

[Swifto]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

[Times Roman]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

This is a curious article. Here are some thoughts:

HIV / AIDS was descimating the gay commuity FIRST (forget about IV drug use community for now). This may be a clue. There may be something about the way the gay community performs sex, that makes the virus easier to transmit. Otherwise, I imagine it would have hit the hetero community harder, since, and after all, there are more hetero than gay. And since there are significant Bi orientated individuals, the spread from one community to the next should have happened, more or less, at the same time.

But the comment "the way.... performs sex" doesn't seem to hold up, since in reality, whether oral or anal, these acts are performed by both communities.

My other thought is that men, if given the opportunity, are probably much more promiscious than women (in general)? And in the gay community, at ground zero (i'm assuming San Francisco), the men had access to many multiple partners within short periods of time. (I remember the stories my friend told me about her gay brother, now deceased). So the velocity of transmission was much greater than in the hetero community.

But it's not like that anymore.... male orgies in gay bath houses... sometimes 20 or more participants. So now the velocity has decreased in this community.

after reading the article, it could be that the study only focused on heteros, and therefore the "hetero" qualifier.

I have a hard time believing the WHO has a political agenda that would extend to the gay community.

[Twist]

It's funny TR you answered all of your questions (or thoughts) in the same post.

The bath houses had a lot to do with it as std's were rampant and the drugs used to get rid of these std's lowered the immune system allowing hiv to take hold easily. Women are more susceptible than men but I would imagine that men who take it (not give it) are just as susceptible as women.

Anyway yeah, they probably only talk about hetero because that is the study population.

[Times Roman]

It's funny TR you answered all of your questions (or thoughts) in the same post. The bath houses had a lot to do with it as std's were rampant and the drugs used to get rid of these std's lowered the immune system allowing hiv to take hold easily. Women are more susceptible than men but I would imagine that men who take it (not give it) are just as susceptible as women.

Anyway yeah, they probably only talk about hetero because that is the study population.

well, I would start off on a thought, and think... hmmm.... the critical flaw in that theory is.... so I'd come up with another theory, then kinda shoot that one down too.

I'd almost be willing to bet a dollar this was a "hetero only" study, and therefore the "hetero only" qualifier.

Seriously, the World Health Organization is really liberal, and doesn't look down or condemn the gay community. their focus truly is health, and not politics of the church

[stack_it]

Keep in mind that the countries tested were in Africa and in many parts of Africa you are murdered for being homosexual. So that could have something to do with the whole "heterosexual" couples thing since the gay couples are less likely to speak up in fear of their well being.

[Pac Man]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

Could be onto something. Much like the way some STDs only affect women and men are carrier, it could be the altered strand that effects male to male contact.
I'm no scientist though but that's my theory

[Times Roman]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

I am inferring from this statement that you are suggesting there is something in the wings, already approved for use, yet due to bigotry or whatever, doesn't make it available?

If this inference is true on my part, I would suggest that the Economics of having a drug like this, the profit motive would be too great to just sit on it.

Why?

1) The pharmaceutical industry is extremely competitive. First one out wins market share
2) R&D cost would be HUGE! The shareholders would demand (including the board and executive staff, who are also shareholders) on a return on their investment.
3) With R&D costs so huge, and corporate espionage liike it is, this vaccine or whatever would be patented. Once patented, then public knowledge.

In a capitalistic economy, it makes no dollars and sense to sit on something like this.

Trust me! If anything, it is the FDA holding back the pharmas. But FDA only controls USA pharma's. Germany, Japan and a few other countries are battling it out for the race to see how will come out with it first.

Conclusion? Anything that is "available" is already out there.

Unless you are talking about meds that are still in trial. But we do have to be careful with that. Trials take time.

I know people are dying. Death is inevitable. And remember, HIV/AIDS is not the fault of the FDA. But if the FDA authorized something prematurely resulting in widespread deaths, then this IS something they would be responsible for.

Bottom line? This is a lose/lose situation. for the people with HIV/AIDS, and for the FDA. They get blamed no matter what they do.

(But i still do NOT like the friggin FDA!!!)

[Times Roman]

Keep in mind that the countries tested were in Africa and in many parts of Africa you are murdered for being homosexual. So that could have something to do with the whole "heterosexual" couples thing since the gay couples are less likely to speak up in fear of their well being.

I imagine that if the word "hetero" were taken out, the article would probably have retained its validity?

[Twist]

I heard on the news today that they did do a study with homosexual males and it had the same effect. Trials for this drug were halted early because the results were so promising that they took it out of the trial phase.